[Linux-aus] Proposed constitutional changes: cessation of membership

[Mary Gardiner]

[Parent message quoted out of order.]

On Mon, May 02, 2011, David Newall wrote:
> Following the KISS principle, if the goal is simply to have a legal,
> financial standing of members, then 99 years is the traditional period of
> time for us to use.  It's been legally tested by time and I see every reason
> why we should adopt it.

That's not the goal. If the goal was to have every member theoretically owe a
very small amount for improved legal standing*, we wouldn't be proposing a whole
set of clauses around having no fee; see the proposed 4(e) and 8(3) for
examples.

The goal is, as in both the current (2005) LA constitution and the model (2010)
constitution, to allow the organisation to collect money from membership fees
at the discretion of the Council. It might be that this list doesn't support
that option remaining open: that's worthy of discussion if so. Please let us
know you're out there, any people who would like the option of a membership fee
written out of the constitution entirely.

* Incidentally, citation needed on any claim that having financial members
would improve the legal standing of our members or our association.

> Is there a good reason why the association should be put to the effort 
> and expense of collecting large quantities of trivial amounts?
> 
> The goal might be to introduce a more significant fee by stealth, but I 
> am certain that it is not the case.  If, in the future, a real fee needs 
> to be charged, I have no doubt that the then current committee will want 
> to make their own appropriate constitutional change, including terms of 
> collection.
> 
> Quite honestly, I can see the current proposal, if passed, being used in 
> future to thwart other, naive members.  Following the KISS principle, if 
> the goal is simply to have a legal, financial standing of members, then 
> 99 years is the traditional period of time for us to use.  It's been 
> legally tested by time and I see every reason why we should adopt it.

The wording of $2 per year is part of the model, so guessing what motive the
Council has by suggesting $2 is pointless: consult the Department of Fair
Trading (who also suggest a 3 month period to pay it). I would *guess* that
it's their estimate of the reasonable cost of maintaining the membership lists.

As best I see it, we have several options here:

 - have the constitution allow but not require a membership fee with cessation
   of membership if not paid in a short time (<6 months say):
   - it allows the membership fee to serve as a fee, that is, an amount of money
     that is required to be paid in order to be a member
   - it doesn't require that the organisation maintain a list of liabilities
     for likely small-ish amounts for 99 years

 - have the constitution explicitly forbid a membership fee:
   - cements the current practice which has worked well enough for LA for a number of years now

 - have the constitution allow but not require a membership fee with cessation
   of membership if not paid in an enormously long time (99 years):
   - as best I can see, this effectively makes it not actually a fee: if
     membership doesn't cease for 99 years people who haven't paid it remain members
   - imposes the requirement of maintaining a list of liabilities for ages

That last, as far as I can see, only makes sense if one is assuming the goal
you stated in your mail, which is not the goal of this amendment.

-Mary